Improving Partnerships to Scale Capacity for

Non-Profit Housing (photo: Vancouver Downtown East Side)

Professor Carolyn Whitzman

Bank of Montreal Invited Scholar, Institute of Feminist and Gender Studies, University of Ottawa

Housing Services Corporation workshop

October 24, 2019

Photo credit: C. Whitzman, East Vancouver

What do you want from partnerships? (image: Rapyuta Robotics, Japan)

Overview of next

hour (image: Vancouver Community

Land Trust)

Definition, pros and cons of

partnership approach

Stories of successful affordable

housing partnerships: Portland,

Vancouver, Melbourne

Discussion of moving forward on

partnerships

Three main

take-aways (image: Edmonton LRT project)

1. Diversity plus mutual interest

plus trust plus time = results

2. Follow the money: finance plus

regulation plus partnerships =

affordable housing

3. Be prepared for the Stonehenge

moments by gathering good

data

Stonehenge moment: On the longest day of the year the sun rises behind the Heel Stone,

the ancient entrance to the stone circle, and rays of light are channelled into the centre

of the monument

“For the first time, I would say that there is some alignment between all three levels of

government on housing.” (Vancouver senior housing policy officer, 2018)

Partnerships

Partnerships between key actors in policy development and implementation (Healey 1997; Forester 1999; Innes and Booher 2010: 6) - preconditions

Diversity

Interdependence

Mutual Learning – from problem-setting stage onwards

Honesty – sharing information and disagreeing openly

Not consensus but substantive agreement, not all actors but key representatives

“A process is collaboratively rational to the extent that all the affected interests jointly engage in face to face dialogue, bringing their various perspectives to the table to deliberate on the problems they face together. For the process to be collaboratively rational, all participants must also be fully informed and able to express their views and be listened to, whether they are powerful or not"

Collaborative/ Deliberative Planning

Partnerships between key

inter-dependent actors in

policy development and

implementation (Healey 1997; Forester

1999;, Innes and Booher 2010)

Deliberative: making

decisions collectively, such as

developing policy or programs

Collaborative: working

together towards a specific

end, often project-based

Advantages/ Outcomes of Deliberative

Planning

Diversity + communication = innovation – new and adaptive systems to address ‘wicked problems’

Facilitate cooperation and reducing a conflictual and legalistic approach: creating a ‘co-benefit’ culture of interdependence

Stronger and sustainable decision-making – less politicisation

Effective advocacy: moving forward with or without government

Most case studies local, metropolitan and environmental planning

Against Deliberative Planning (Allmendinger and Haughton,

2012: 90; Rydin 2007; Sanders 1997)

Ignores power differentials

Tension between consensus and agonism: how to handle

conflicts and not back down on basic values

Extension of ‘Growth Machine’ politics – business, media

and government working together to facilitate profit

(Public-Private Partnerships)

“a system focused on carefully stage-managed processes with subtly but clearly

defined parameters of what is open for debate. This system gives the superficial

appearance of engagement and legitimacy, whilst focusing on delivering growth

expedited through some carefully choreographed processes for participation which

minimise the potential for those with conflicting views to be given a meaningful

hearing”

Do Affordable Housing Partnerships Make

a Difference 2015-2018?

1. How do key actors currently work in partnerships for affordable housing, and how do they see partnerships working to support innovation in overcoming barriers to more and better affordable housing?

2. Do shared understandings emerge from partnerships and if so, are those shared understandings helpful or unhelpful to outcomes (more and better affordable housing)?

A focus on comparisons with four similar sized cities with poor federal funding and housing affordability crises: Toronto, Melbourne, Portland, Vancouver

Initial Mar-May 2015 interviews –follow up July-Aug 2018 interviews

Questions and Methods

semi-structured interviews with 7-8 key actors (local govt; metro/state govt; private/ philanthropic investor; community housing; private developer and/or peak body) plus demographic and policy analysis

2015: Did partnerships lead to shared understandings lead to more effective action (affordable housing, barriers and enablers, right to housing); who they worked with, how and why; story of successful partnership

2018: Did partnerships enable innovation and if so, how? What was the affordable housing trajectory 2015-18 and what role did partnerships play?

Two cities with strong histories of consensual metropolitan planning (Vancouver and Portland) compared with two cities with no current metropolitan planning (Toronto and Melbourne)

Melbourne, Vancouver, Portland, Toronto

Melbourne Toronto Vancouver Portland

Metro pop 4,485,211 5,928,040 2,463,431 2,389,228

Household

income

$80,184 AUD $78,280 CND $79,930

CND

$68,676 USD

Median unit

price

$720,433 AUD $782,129 CND $1,087,500

CND

$425,500 USD

Median rent $1,800/

month AUD

$2,020 1 br

$2,520 2 br

$2,000 1br

$3,200 2br

$1,158/ mo. USD

Proportion of

social and

affordable

housing built

2015-18

2,668/

5,000,000

< 200/

2,500,000

1/6 of

Melbourne

4,700/

650,000

15X as

much as

Melbourne

1,848/

650,000

6X as much as

Melbourne

lessons Still taking

‘boutique

approach’

A cautionary

tale

Scaling up

affordable

housing

Best housing

affordability

Three levels of government

National:

takes in vast majority of tax revenue – fiscal transfers for public goods like healthcare and housing

Legally obligated under UN declarations to treat housing as a right

Through mortgage, taxes, infrastructure policy, etc. has biggest potential effect on affordable housing

State/provincial/territorial

Responsible for service planning (health, education, transport and land use)

Landlord-tenant relations

Municipal powers (bonds, inclusionary housing, rent control)

Local

Least taxes (12% Canada, 3% Australia)

Most responsibility infrastructure spending, including housing (60%) (CUPE 2019)

Portland: affordability and regulation

Median multiples are about average wage and house prices, and don’t

measure rental availability or affordability (affordable = average house price

X average wage = 3)

But Demographia, which releases well-publicized annual reports based on

median multiples, correlates regulation with absence of affordability

Portland has 5 levels of government, 40 year growth boundary, rental

replacement by-law, strict zoning, etc etc. – it may be the most overplanned

city in North America, good job market, high net migration, etc.

In 2018, Median rents were 20% median income (Melbourne 27%, Toronto 35%,

Vancouver 39%) – and vacancy rate 7% (all other cities <1%)

Portland Toronto Melbourne Vancouver

2013 4.3 5.9 7.5 9.9

2018 5.5 7.9 9.9 12.6

Why does purpose-built rental work? (graphs: State of Housing in Portland 2018; Adam

Seideman, In Search of Missing Condos, 2016)

Lower Gini co-efficient (less wealth inequality than SF, Seattle or Vancouver)

Less interest from foreign investors

Lower risk tolerance from local investors (banks)

2018: Inclusionary Housing (20% affordable to those earning 80% of AMI or 10% to those earning 60%) and rent control

Commitment to no net loss low income rental central city (but no gain either)

Despite lots of single family zoning, high commitment to re-zoning near new LRT lines (6 storeys) with value capture

Advocacy partnerships for

new funding and rules (metro

Portland)

Welcome Home Coalition: 40 advocacy members plus more ‘mainstream’ Oregon Housing Alliance (providers) went to state and regional governments with good data and costs – focus on lowest income households

2015: Lottery and general bonds: $60 million/ year (2019: $150 million/year)

2016: Emergency Housing Assistance increased to $50 million/year, raised minimum wage

2017: document recording fee: $90 million/ year

2018: municipalities can raise affordable housing bonds

Most importantly, they got the metro government to start investing and regulating

$650 million bond issue plus $250 million from City of Portland

How did

Welcome

Home and

Oregon

Housing

Alliance do it?

A solid needs assessment that can inform best use of investments, and ensure that particular sub-populations in most need are appropriately housed

Layering and leveraging funding sources and subsidies to maximise impact

Evidence on what policies and programs are working (part of the reason for the drip-release of mechanisms over 2015-18) – strong relationships with Portland State University

Partnerships: within state government, between levels of government and with private and non-profit entities

The Portland Team Meyer Foundation - philanthropy: capacity development and innovation financing

Joint Office of Homeless Services: co-located partnership between City of Portland and Multnomah County to provide housing with services

Welcome Home Coalition: 40+ housing advocacy groups

Oregon Housing Alliance: like ONPHA (non profit housing providers – strong annual lobby)

Portland Housing Bureau: City of Portland, build and report on affordable housing

REACH: largest non-profit housing provider

Portland Business Alliance: have supported key programs through advocacy and fundraising

Portland State University: data and accountability

Portland does data well… (2018 State of Portland Housing)

All data is spatialised: spatial justice is understood

Annual housing reports that prioritise rental preservation plus infrastructure investment in lower income racially mixed areas

All subsidized housing transparent: pro formas

Easy to understand monitoring progress towards goals

Emphasis on more affordable housing in ‘high opportunity areas’

Portland prioritises problem-solving

through communication and good data

“Within the [federal] Veteran’s Administration, they were having lots of trouble getting housing placements with the [Portland] Housing Authority. There wasn’t much collaboration between the local services and the national benefits, and they were sending thousands [of dollars] back to Washington each year. Operation 305 included writing small cheques for cell phones or bus tickets or bank rent… That made a lot of difference to keeping a permanent home.” (county government, Portland, 2015)

Anyone earning 80% AMI or more, while they don’t necessarily live where they want, they can find an affordable home up to an hour’s [public transport] commute from the central city in the metropolitan area. That’s why we focus on 60% and less. (city government, Portland, 2018)

Vancouver: from tap-turners to game-

changers

Consolidating Non-Profit Asset Power to Scale Up Housing

A Strategic Alliance of Non-Profit Housing Providers Co-Develops a Provincial Housing Strategy

VanCity: funding

BC Housing and City of Vancouver and (sometimes) Metro Van

BC Non-Profit Housing Association and Coop Housing Federation BC

Landlords BC

Greater Vancouver Board of Trade

UBC: research help

BC ‘asset

bundling’

Community

Land Trust

Average co-op 56 units, 600+ non-profits with

<100 dwellings

Co-located CHFBC and BCONPHA offices:

shared advocacy and communications

The notion that we could unbundle the everyday

property management and the long term asset

management… [and] use the existing equity to

develop and re-develop, especially if we get

free municipal land (Thom Armstrong, CHFBC,

2018)

How Community Land Trust works- Fraserview

358 homes (2018) on 4 sites

City of Vancouver leased land for ‘peppercorn’ rent

90 2-3 br non-profit cooperative housing at market rent; security of tenure; rents will only increase if costs increase (self-managed)

188 subsidized – rents affordable 60% AMI

48 supportive housing for people with mental illness

32 units for women and children escaping violence – faith-based non-profit

Enabled through partnerships between local government and 3 non-profits – no units sold

7 more sites planned for 2019-2021

Provincial Housing

Strategy 2015: VanCity funded BCNPHA to build a rental

housing index (now national)

2017: VanCity funded a coalition to produce An Affordable Action Housing Plan for BC – after election when NDP/Green coalition elected, became basis for new housing plan

Why didn’t 2018 ONPHA plan fare as well?

Vancouver has better media coverage of affordability problems

BC Housing can take advantage of outside advocacy to develop plan

MUCH broader coalition: Landlord BC, BC Board of Trade

Rapid Response to Homelessness (images: ABC- Launch Housing; Georgia Straight – City of

Vancouver)

57 modular homes in

Melbourne on govt land-

took 3 years to get through

planning approvals

600 modular homes

constructed on vacant

government land in City of

Vancouver in 13 months

after federally funded pilot

project

Vancouver does scaling

well!

How did

Vancouver do

it?

Great data and media work!

Deep and long partnerships between local and provincial government, universities, non-profit providers, investors – even though there are LOTS of tensions!

A common language: affordability at various levels of income, housing continuum

Government land plus non-profit assets plus lots of layering of programs

Vancouver and Portland partnerships

Horizontal integration: We aren’t fighting over shares of a shrinking pie. We

are working together to expand the pie (Thom Armstrong, CHFBC, 2018)

Vertical integration: There has been a strong partnership between the local

community and the federal homelessness initiatives. We latched onto it in

order to improve our services, and that in turn got us out into the national

conversation. That relationship has stayed strong over time (Portland-

Multnomah homelessness initiative, 2015)

Partners not supplicants: When they first introduced me to the [CMHC

committee], they said ‘Here is Kira Gerwing from VanCity, who is requesting

matching funding for a fund she is building’. I said: ‘I need to clarify that,

I’m not requesting anything. I’m actually inviting the CMHC to partner with

us on a fund which we are doing whether you participate or not’ (Vancouver,

2018)

Melbourne and Toronto Partnerships

Horizontal disintegration: “Affordable Housing and Support is under one

Deputy Manager, and Planning is under another, and Real Estate is under

another and they work with Build. There are multiple different relationships

and managers. I guess the City Manager would be responsible for all of them.

But I don’t think there has been a coordinated approach. And maybe

[there has been] some competitive posturing” (City of Toronto planner,

2015).

“We haven’t done any partnerships with other providers yet. [The Federal

grants program] was quite a competitive space and we were all quite inward

looking.” (Melbourne social housing provider, 2015)

Unsuccessful supplicants: The provincial level has definitely been the slowest

to respond [to new affordable housing opportunities]…. Ontario had a 15 year

window where it matched federal dollars but wasn’t engaging in any way.

Seven ministers in five years. There was nobody taking it on in the

government. And frankly, I blame us [affordable housing actors]. We were

ineffective as a group in moving the issue forward. (Toronto investor, 2018)

Transforming Housing: what was it? (Ramona Apartments, Portland)

A 6 year university-industry partnership based in Melbourne, Australia, convened by researchers in planning, public health, economics, property development, geography, and architecture, using a collaborative planning approach to improve housing affordability and quality outcomes.

Ramona Apartments, Portland Image source greenroofs.com)

Partnership approach - funders &

industry research partners

University of Melbourne planning, real estate, architecture, public health, geography, economics, engineering

Private developers Specific organisations and sector representatives

Community housing public, non-profit, co-op

State govt planning, housing, treasury, health

Local govt 32 in Greater Melbourne

Investors community foundations, bank, credit union, pension fund

Design / policy advice architecture, economics consultancies

Everyone feels powerless! (photo credits: DHS,

lifestylecommunities.com.au)

Federal and state government:

weakening role, politicized and

inconsistent policy

Local government: increasing interest but

few levers

Investors (private, philanthropic): billions

in potential investment – how to unlock?

Private developers: 95+% of housing –

Corporate social responsibility?

Social housing providers: small but

growing stock, few enablers

Phase 1: Creating the Partnership 2013-

2014 Interviews with housing decision-makers in Melbourne What are the barriers? What do you need to know to overcome them?

Study Tour / Interviews with ~60 key housing decision-makers in San Francisco, Portland, Vancouver, Toronto and New York How do you innovate? How do you work in partnerships?

Developing and testing workable options

Through options papers, interdisciplinary studios, and capacity-building workshops

Image Source Via Verde, New York | Richardson Apartments, San Francisco

Co-learning (photo: Judy Sutherland, HCA, with students in social housing site visit)

Architecture (design), planning (policy) and real estate (costing) students

City of Melbourne and non-profit housing provider were ‘clients’

Large community foundation came on to Transforming Housing after they guest lectured

Guest lectures and critiques from leading architects, private developers, state government, investors, etc.

Led to new partnerships, ideas, and jobs for graduates!

Phase 2: Affordable

Housing Summit 2015

Invitation-only forum to move from ideas to action

Professionally facilitated

Involving roughly equal numbers from state government, local government, private development, social housing and investment – 60 people

10 ideas in Options Paper:

Policy and regulation

Finance and investment

Partnerships and demonstration projects

Affordable Housing Summit 2015

Substantial agreement on key ideas

in Options Paper

“Offers” made by participants from

a variety of sectors

Key directions for future actions

Led to changes in the revised

metropolitan strategy and

influenced draft infrastructure

strategy – affordable housing as key

infrastructure need for 1st time

Phase 3: 2016-2019- opportunities and

challenges New left of centre state government elected 2015– ironically

withdrew funding while using our data more than ever!

New metropolitan plan and affordable housing plan

Difficulty in engaging with federal government – right wing, had eliminated ‘major cities unit’

More involvement from philanthropic funders and non-profits but not as ‘balanced’ as before…

New energy from private and non-profit developers, but focus on problematic policies – voluntary IH and public housing redevelopment

2 part-time postdocs! But retention issues

New Housing Policy subject, but opposition from within my faculty

Four Linked Activities 2016-19 POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Inform and influence the development and implementation of viable affordable housing policy at all levels of government through facilitating a partnership model that includes the perspectives of private developers, investors, community housing providers, the government and the community

INNOVATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY AND EVALUATION Support the development and delivery of innovative affordable housing projects through capacity building, partnership facilitation and by supporting the development, documentation and evaluation of projects that have the potential for wider application

SECTORAL DEVELOPMENT Support capacity building within and between financiers, local and state government, private developers and community housing providers in order for these groups to work together and create a sustainable affordable housing industry delivering quality outcomes at scale.

A NEW GENERATION OF HOUSING RESEARCHERS Improve the capacity of the University of Melbourne researchers to undertake ‘action research’ in affordable housing, with an emphasis on early career researchers

. The Commons, City of Moreland (The Age) LRT Extension project, Edmonton (4LRT.ca)

Step 1:Definition of Affordable Housing (Canadian centre for policy alternatives, 2019)

In UK and Australia (and Ontario), 80% of market rate is meaningless to low income people: in Vancouver, a minimum wage worker would need to work 84 hours/week to afford an average 1 br rent; in Toronto, you would need to earn $27/hr to afford an affordable 1 br

We worked with State of Victoria for almost 18 months to support definition based on Area Median Income – would have preferred different categories (30/50/80)

Very low (VLI) >50% AMI

Low (LI) 50-80%

Moderate (M) 80-120%

The ‘purpose’ of the Planning Act has been amended: “to provide affordable housing”

Calculating Household Income ‘Tranches’ (City of Vancouver Housing Strategy 2017-2027)

In US, there is a category ‘extremely low income’, equating with income of

household on some form of government benefits (~20% AMI)

‘very low income’, equates with minimum wage (~50% AMI)

‘low income’ equates with two people on ft minimum wage or entry level

‘key worker’ – teacher, police officer, nurse (~80% AMI)

‘moderate’ – average earning professional (~120% AMI)

Note: City of Vancouver has 6 categories, with category 4 at AMI - renters

Step 2. Quantify Need: affordable rents

and home prices (bold: affordable) 164,000 home deficit for VLI and LI hhs (90% in Greater Melbourne) plus need for 45,000

affordable homes for these groups/ year

Moderate income rental ok! Focus on VLI and LI

Household income tranches, Toronto

2016 census

Household

income

category

Annual income %

population

(cumulative)

Affordable

monthly rent

notes

XLI (<19% AMI) <$14,999 6.1 <$375 Government

transfer

VLI (19-51%) $15,000-39,999 17.7 (23.8) $500-999 Minimum wage

earners

LI (52-76%) $40,000-59,999 14.3 (38.1) $1,000-1499 Key workers

MI (77-127%) $60,000-99,999 23.8 (61.9) $1,500-2,499 professionals

Higher (>128%) >$100,000 38% $2,500+ managers

Availability: found a figure of ‘missing’

affordable and available VLI and LI units

10 year Housing Needs, Greater Melbourne (image:

UDIA)

0-50% 50-80% 80-120% 120%+

% households 25 19 20 36

# units deficit (146,000) 125,000 21,000

# units growth (484,850) 121,213 92,122 96, 970 174,546

TOTAL (630,841)

456,295 need to be

affordable for 64% of the

population

246,213 113,112 96, 970

174,546

Step 3. Policy Analysis (Berke & Godschalk, 2009)

1. Are the plan directions and support mechanisms based on data that

establishes needs and problems, including spatialisation of the

phenomena and focus on particular population groups?

2. How does the vision and issues identification lead to goals or targets,

and a monitoring and evaluation framework?

3. Is there a selection of options based on a transparent analysis,

leading to an estimation of costs and sources of revenue as part of

recommendations, as well as mechanisms to overcome any fiscal or

legal impediments?

4. Is there a process for including all key stakeholders in a sustainable

partnership model, with clear leads on policies?

Policy analysis Briefing paper- Could you

meet needs in 10 years (Dept of Treasury)

60% of new build as social housing (Vienna Model) – needs ongoing

subsidy

Extremely ambitious private build to rent with 20% deep subsidy

Low income accessory unit program

Mandatory IZ at Montreal levels (20/20/20)

0-50% 50-80% 80-120% 120%+ Total

Social housing program

50/20/30

180,000 72,000 108,000 360,000

BTR program 10,000 40,000 50,000

Accessory and Infill –

rent and own

12,586 41,112 53,698

20% VLI inclusionary

zoning on all higher

income projects

43,627 174,546 209,455

TOTAL 246,213 113,112 96,970 174,546 673,841

30,000: a baseline 10 year target Infrastructure Victoria and Council for Homeless People recommend it

Emphasis on VLI and building capacity to scale

Smaller scale government land social program (Project 30,000)

Rental 100 focus on moderate income

Inclusionary zoning on well-located land near infrastructure

0-50% 50-80% 80-120% 120%+ Total

Government land –

30/20/50

9,600 6,000 15,000 30,600

PBR with 20% Very low

income

3,000 27,000 30,000

Accessory Dwellings plus

Shared Equity

2,000 13,000 15,000

5% VLI inclusionary zoning

on some higher income

dvmt.

10,000 190,000 200,000

Other development 200,000 200,000

TOTAL 22,600 8,000 55,000 390,000 475,600

Getting to Scaling up

1. State: Use of all available well-located and suitable state and local government ‘lazy land’ (vacant, surplus, or under-used eg., council car parks) - investigating leasing and community land trust models

2. State: Assist local governments and sub-regions to set housing targets based on availability of infrastructure and need calculated across Greater Melbourne – may need stronger enabler than voluntary inclusionary housing

3. Federal: New federal infrastructure investment in social housing + Bond aggregator to create new asset class of affordable rental apartments + targeted rent assistance

The Vital Pilot: The Affordable Housing

Challenge, LMCF, Melbourne

What: a grant aimed at encouraging cross sectoral

solutions to increasing the supply of affordable housing in

metropolitan Melbourne.

Funding: The Foundation is putting a $1 million grant and

a potential $2 million impact investment (through Social

Enterprise Finance Australia) forward

How: Partnerships between not for profit organisations

and commercial developers will be a key feature of the

Challenge. Leveraged financing arrangements will be

encouraged, including potentially accessing state

government funding

Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation:

Housing Access Rating Tool

LMCF

Points LMCF Threshold

Groceries 3 1000m

Public transport 4

500m bus, 1000m tram, 1500m rail

– minimum service threshold

(partial points for some

combinations of access)

Childcare, Public primary

& Secondary schools 3 500m Childcare & Primary, 1500m

Secondary

Libraries 1 1500m

Parks & Open Space 3 500m

Pools/Recreation 1 1500m

Healthcare open 40

hours per week &

Pharmacy 3 1500m

Social Services 2 1500m

Total Points Possible 20

Applying HART Score to Melbourne: Site

Inventory of “Lazy land”

Step 4. Calculating Social Benefits Existing research calculates government savings in health, education, productivity of affordable

housing programs.

Feeding these into cost calculations reveals high returns on investment for some projects.

We experimented with this on a shared equity scheme for former public housing tenants. We included benefits to new owners as well as formerly homeless who could occupy freed-up public housing.

Results: 219% return on investment (calculated on a 10 year horizon).

Inputs used for “social benefits tab” of Affordable Housing Calculator

Why

Transforming

Housing

Worked

Partnerships take trust and time: first 3 years!

Co-research: they told us what they needed to know to scale up affordable housing

People mattered: needed influence, experience, and commitment (a lot of churn)

Public-facing: a LOT of media work (daily)

Issues with vertical and horizontal governance integration: departments not talking to one another

Partnership Analysis (Emerson et al, 2011)

1. Was engagement based on the expressed desire to co-design policy?

2. Are there signs of trust, commitment, and mutual understanding being

developed?

3. Is there evidence of new institutional arrangements, leadership, knowledge

or resources?

4. Are there joint actions arising from this deliberation?

Every new affordable home is a life

saved (image courtesy Simon Wollan, MGS Architects, Kyme Place, South Melbourne)

But… to scale up non-profit housing…

Partnership lessons

Diverse Partnerships

Portland: all levels of government plus universities plus… Business Alliance?

Vancouver: non-profits plus… Landlords?

Melbourne: non-profits, philanthropies, plus… Private developers?

Follow the Money

Portland: new sources of affordable housing funding

Vancouver: land turns out to be the best things local government can provide

Melbourne: cost-benefit analysis within affordable housing calculator

Be prepared for the Stonehenge moment

So far, only Vancouver is scaling up, but Portland and Melbourne have the data

ready

Ingredients for

Success

1. Targets for ALL housing to meet all people’s needs

2. Free government land

3. Non-profits with a strong asset base, 10 year plans and tremendous entrepreneurialism: asset bundling or mergers

4. Low-cost financing, especially bridging for start up and RFP costs (Quebec and VanCity models)

5. Partnerships

1. Advocacy – Welcome Home

2. Construction Development – Land Trust

3. Policy Development – Transforming Housing

More about this research

Affordable Housing Partnerships in Portland, Vancouver and Toronto: Lessons

for Melbourne’s Transforming Housing (2015)

https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2603703/Affordable-

housing-partnerships-v2.pdf

Tap-Turners and Game-Changers: Lessons from Vancouver, Portland and

Toronto (2018)

https://msd.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2882491/Tap-Turners-

and-Game-Changers.pdf